Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Rangel Defends Use of Rent-Stabilized Apartments

Representative Charles B. Rangel responded to questions about his rent-stabilized apartments during a news conference in Harlem on Friday. (Photo: Lucas Jackson/Reuters)

Updated, 5 p.m. | Representative Charles B. Rangel held a 20-minute news conference on Friday afternoon after The New York Times reported that he had four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem at a time when the city is experiencing an affordable housing crisis. At one point angry residents accosted the congressman, the dean of Harlem politics, in an unusual sidewalk confrontation, as Mr. Rangel faced questions from reporters.

Mr. Rangel, who is the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said his living arrangements were fair and legal and that he was paying the maximum rent allowed on all four rent-stabilized units, in the Lenox Terrace complex at West 135th Street and Lenox Avenue. “I didn’t see anything unfair about it,” he said. “I didn’t even know it was a deal.”

He did say, however, that he was evaluating the use of one of the four apartments as a campaign office, saying, “I have to take another look” at that situation. If the use of the apartment as a campaign office is a problem, he said, he would “go to another place and get a different office. Period.”

“That is something that I have to look into, but as it relates to me and my family, I’m not looking into that at all,” he said, saying he had no problem with the large combined residential apartment he and his family live in.

Representative Charles B. Rangel, 78, Democrat of Manhattan, was elected in 1970. He is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. (Photo: Susan Walsh/Associated Press)

Mr. Rangel began the sidewalk news conference with this statement:

First of all, to get the general theme of the New York Times story, which starts off with Rangel living in a luxurious penthouse. It’s very difficult to do this when you don’t live on the top floor.

It’s even more difficult to do it with a building that does not have a penthouse, but that is the general thrust of the story, in terms of talking about a guy that was born and raised in this community, and for close to 80 years lived in two places: 74 West 132nd Street and as I used to joke about it, became a big shot, moved uptown three blocks from 132nd Street and Lenox Avenue to 135th and Lenox Avenue.

I feel so terribly proud of never having to leave my neighborhood. I feel so proud that my wife, no matter what small successes we’ve had, has never felt to leave the neighborhood. If there’s an implication that I could live someplace that’s more expensive, then I would say yes and it’s none of The New York Times’s business where I decide to live. Nor do I think it is The New York Times’s business how much space I think need for my family and friends, who used to be able, when I owned a home in Washington, to spend a night and visit, and when I lived on 132nd Street, in a brownstone, to do the same.

What is true in the story is that I pay the maximum legal rent for my apartments.

Mr. Rangel noted that he had adult children and grandchildren, who often stay over at his residence.

He portrayed himself as a proud lifelong resident of Harlem, who moved into the complex when others could not afford to.

“To say that this is one of the most attractive buildings that we have in Harlem is true,” he said. “But when it went up it was damn near empty because no one could afford to live here. I’m not even thinking about leaving the neighborhood, and that’s that.”

Asked by a reporter whether his living arrangements were fair — given that other residents of rent-stabilized apartments who have more than one unit are typically asked to occupy just one — Mr. Rangel replied, “The question of fairness is so subjective.”

The news conference took a turn when Mr. Rangel said he was not aware of tenants legally living in rent-stabilized apartments being evicted.

Several residents angrily accosted Mr. Rangel, saying that he had ignored their complaints about that phenomenon. “I have no knowledge of anyone being evicted that has paid their rent,” he said.

When a Times reporter, David Kocieniewski, pressed Mr. Rangel on the issue of fairness, the congressman declined to answer, saying, “I have decided unilaterally that you have asked more than your share.” He added, when Mr. Kocieniewski tried to press him, “Hell no, I’m not going to respond to you.”

Mr. Rangel said he did have a problem with “people living in rent-stabilized apartments that have moved themselves from the building and lived in other places,” and he said the management of the complex had taken action against such tenants. But he said that residents who legitimately lived in their rent-stabilized units were not being evicted.

Asked whether it was proper for him to live in three attached apartments on the 16th floor of the building, Mr. Rangel said, “That was done before I moved into the apartment, and there are many apartments here that are combined.”

Mr. Rangel said that two of the three apartments he used as a residence — a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom, listed as two separate apartments in the state rent roll — had been combined before he moved in. As for the third unit, he said:

The apartment next door became vacant. And I got that apartment and I used that as my den and my office when I came in late at night from Washington I go in there first. It’s a studio apartment. It has its own kitchen and bathroom and no bedroom.

He added, “I’m not apologizing to anyone for that.”

Later he said, “The idea that being 78 years old, having two places, one is rent-stabilized, and this is the twilight of my life…”

Toward the end of his news conference, Mr. Rangel suggested that it was absurd that he should be criticized, asking rhetorically whether he should place an ad in a newspaper asking, “Is there any place I can get this at a higher price because there’s some crazy reporter who thinks I have a good deal?”

As Mr. Rangel walked away, reporters followed him, and a Times reporter, Jeremy W. Peters, asked the congressman why he did not disclose his rent discounts on his financial disclosure reports. Mr. Rangel’s reply was testy: “Paying the legal rent is not a gift. Are you doing this deliberately, or are you just stupid?”

Jim Capel, Mr. Rangel’s chief of staff, said that the congressman and his aides never asked the state or the city for an exception that would allow them to use a rent-stabilized apartment as a campaign office. (Rent regulation laws in New York require that such units be used as primary residences.)

The landlord was aware of the situation, said Mr. Capel, who also lives in Lenox Terrace. “It’s not like we snuck in here,” Mr. Capel said. “He knew what we were doing, so we didn’t have to ask anyone else.”

Around noon, dozens of journalists had gathered on the sidewalk outside the tower, at 40 West 135th Street, where Mr. Rangel lives, approaching residents as they entered and left and asking for comment.

“I’m a registered nurse, I live in this community, I take care of this community, and I can’t get a deal like that,” said Evelyn Harvey, who mentioned that she once lived in a $700-a-month rent-stabilized apartment in Lenox Terrace but now lives in a $1,300-a-month market-rate unit in the same complex. “When you have money and you have status, the rules are different.”

Another Harlem resident, James Bryant, said: “If he had four, he has to let three go. Think about the homeless people who are out here. Other people need a place to live too.”

Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence.

Mr. Rangel, who has a net worth of $566,000 to $1.2 million, according to Congressional disclosure records, paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments at Lenox Terrace, a 1,700-unit luxury development of six towers, with doormen, that is described in real estate publications as Harlem’s most prestigious address.

The current market-rate rent for similar apartments in Mr. Rangel’s building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month, according to the Web site of the owner, the Olnick Organization.

Mr. Rangel said at the sidewalk news conference he had never done any favors for, or requested any favors from, the landlords, adding, “If I saw the landlord today, in this group, I would not know what the hell he looked like.”

The use of multiple apartments that might not normally be available to other tenants could pose legal or ethical problems for Mr. Rangel. The House Ethics Manual [pdf] defined a gift as “a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value.” But Mr. Rangel dismissed the notion that his housing arrangements could be construed as a gift.

When a reporter asked Mr. Rangel whether he thought the publicity about his four rent-stabilized apartments would harm his chances for reelection or put any pressure on him to resign, he responded, his voice thick with sarcasm, “Yeah, I’ll have to give that some serious thought. Yes, I may give up the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee and give up the seat I’ve had for 38 years and say, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa, how could this happen to me?'”

He added: “If anyone can show any remote possibility that this could be considered as a gift, I’ll quit tomorrow. If not, they should owe me an apology.”

Mr. Rangel’s aides distributed a formal statement, titled, “This Is My Home,” at the start of the news conference. The full text of the statement follows:

I called this press conference to respond to a puzzling article in today’s New York Times that was critical of my living arrangements in my hometown of Harlem. The story said I live in a penthouse, and insinuated that I have some sort of sweetheart deal with the landlord. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All you have to do is look at this 50-year-old building to see that there are no penthouses, certainly not my apartment. I pay the maximum legal rent, and in fact, would be violating the law if I paid more.

When my family moved in, apartments were not scarce in Harlem, and rents were relatively low, including those in Lenox Terrace. Because I have not moved the rents have increased only incrementally each year, and therefore have remained low, especially compared to today’s “downtown” rentals.

My wife, Alma, and I moved into 40 West about 20 years ago. Our apartment – the same place we live in today — was two units combined into one by the previous occupant, Dr. Eugene Callendar, a prominent minister and community leader. It is where we raised our two children and where our three grandchildren visit with us.

A few years ago, as our family grew, we rented a small unit next door to our apartment, which served as a sort of den and work room for me and as an extra room for our children, and now our grandchildren, to sleep when they visit us.

The office mentioned in the story is a small apartment, which I use for working and to make fund-raising calls. When the apartment was rented about 10 years ago, there was no question about whether it was appropriate in view of the fact there were — and still are — other offices in the building.

The main point that I wish to make today is not only that the rents I pay are the maximum allowable by law, but that the units I’ve rented for close to 20 years are my home. What has been described as a double apartment is the same apartment it’s been even before we moved in; the small unit next door is just another room in our house.

Some people are surprised that in my 78 years I’ve basically lived in two places, 40 West 135th Street, and before that, in a brownstone three blocks away on 132nd Street, which was owned by my grandfather and where I was born and lived for more than 50 years. It is for that reason that rents have not increased that much for me. Not because of any sweetheart deal.

I know what it’s like in the rental market today: apartments are scarce, rents are high, and some unscrupulous landlords are using under-handed means to evict tenants. For years, I’ve been fighting them, including owners who have relationships to the owners of this building.

In my role on the Ways and Means Committee, housing has been a top priority. Since 1986, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which I authored, has been responsible for the development of 2 million rental units across the nation, and over 6,500 affordable units in Upper Manhattan alone. This year, I am working on adjustments to the tax code to expand the credits by 10 percent.

I am grateful that the G.I. Bill provided me — a poor high school dropout from Lenox Avenue — with the education to become a lawyer and to eventually make my way to Congress, where my position on the Ways and Means Committee is allowing me to make a difference in the lives of my constituents, friends and neighbors. Harlem will always be my home.

yet another one! how outrageous! these are the same politicians that constantly increase property and income taxes on the rest of us, practically forcing us out of our homes, as they shield themselves by gaming the system intended to help the less fortunate. throw the bum out.

So, another two-faced politician in New York? Yawn. All politicians feel they have ‘earned’ their pork……why should Rangel be any different? Don’t whine about it – do something – vote the schmuck out of office. (Mayor Bloomberg: this guy is breaking the law using that 4th apartment as a campaign office – do your job: prosecute him.)

Maybe we should have homeless people occupy Mr. Rangel’s three superfluous apts, while he moves to a dungeon and conducts State affairs from over there? How’d he look? How is the most influential politician in Harlem to spend his time and private life? In shambles and claustrophobia? It goes with the territory. Such is the way of our mores. The king of the hill hafta have a hill to rule from.

How is he able to have 4!!! rent stabilized apartments? If state and city regulations require the rent stabilized apartment be used as a primary residence, I doubt he has anyway of justify having 4 primary residences. And one is clearly being used as an office. This is unconscionable and disgraceful. Just because he is a congressman does not mean he is above the law.
And has he gotten rid of his expensive taxpayer funded car yet?
Something has got to change….

The desire for “low overhead”, particularly in Manhattan is UNIVERSAL regardless of income level. Does anyone remember that the accomplished actor Mandy Patinkin and his family lived in a rent stabilized apt. on the UWS for 28 years before the rent was increased to market rate? Only then did he purchase something. NO ONE is immune from the desire to live in a prime location well below market, regardless of the building’s or neighborhood’s prior history. Rangel is human just like the rest of us – only with more resources and access to movers and shakers.

Unfortunately, this kind of news is very common, but mostly unreported. The fact that Rangel’s trying to justify it is even worse. Just admit your mistakes, pay full rent and move on. Thanks to the NYTimes for reporting this.

When you had the opportunity to procure the then decrepit brownstones of Harlem for a $1 each back in the 70’s to help the people of that community out, you prostrated yourself to developers and others.

It’s almost 40 years later and now I hear about this. Should I really be surprised?

doesn’t an apt. lose its “rent-stabilized” status once the tenants have a combined household income of over $175,000? or does this rule not apply to certain people? otherwise, i don’t see how he is able to get away with this.

What about the small property owners who can’t raise the rents enough to cover heating their building this year and the mortgage? While he has 4 apartments at under 4,00 a month and a net worth over half a million, people who have started to climb the American dream will lose their homes, and credit. All because of the inequities in the rent regulation.

Rangel is full of it. While rent stabilization may benefit a select few (who are often wealthy), it drives up overall rents for the rest of New Yorkers. This effect is multiplied when folks like Rangel cheat and game the system.

As for Rangel thinking its nobody’s business that he’s taking advantage of a government program intended to help those less well off than him (which happens to be outdated), please…

If you look around, you will find that Mr.Rangel did nothing different than 99.99% of people holding similar power. Is he a Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi ?. Absolutely not. But is he a humble man and has served his constituents well. Yes, most definiely. However, it does not justify his actions. He is a product of the environment we live in. Let us not hold him to a higher standard than all other politicians.

What’s Rangel doing? What could his defense possbily be: he has 4 primary residences!? A rent stabilized apt. can only be used as your primary residence. It’s one thing when elected officials take from the purse of privilege, it’s another when they try to portray it as innocuous.

Rangel should drop 3 of the apts. and let the issue die. I’m sure some landlord will gladly rent him a market rate apt. at below market rates anyway. If he goes that route he might even save money!

Rangel needs to take a deep breath and do the right thing. He needs to give up the apartment used as an office that is separate from his primary residence. He needs to determine if the three combined units he uses as a primary apartment are rented illegally under the rent stabilization law. If they are, he needs to move out.

Here is the real question: Will the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, or some other prosecutor with jurisdiction, go after Messrs. Rangel and Patterson.

Congressman Rangel’s justifications are sheer poppycock. In fact, his words almost seemed to say “I am entitled”. Much to this writer’s great disappointment, he is just another politician feeding at the public trough. Maybe it is time for the taxpayers to really reward Mr. Rangel with three hot meals a day and a cot to sleep on?

So lets see we have a Gov who makes well over 100K and can afford to own a home in a tony albany Suburb taking from the hard working black families they claim to love and fight for and a millionaire who rents 4m count um 4 apartments on the low.

Both should give them up tomorrow, they are rich!
have riduclous pensions coming and other incomes from books

What's Next

Looking for New York Today?

New York Today is still going strong! Though no longer on City Room, New York Today continues to appear every weekday morning, offering a roundup of news and events for the city. You can find the latest New York Today at nytoday.com or in the morning, on The New York Times homepage or its New York section. You can also receive it via email.

Lookin for Metropolitan Diary?

Metropolitan Diary continues to publish! Since 1976, Metropolitan Diary has been a place for New Yorkers, past and present, to share odd fleeting moments in the city. We will continue to publish one item each weekday morning and a round-up in Monday's print edition. You can find the latest entries at nytimes.com/diary and on our New York section online.

About

City Room®, a news blog of live reporting, features and reader conversations about New York City, has been archived. Send questions or suggestions by e-mail.